Lumad killings: Who’s responsible?

Datu Doloman Dausay rests beside his kalasag (shield) as various groups, including representatives of different indigenous peoples communities from Northeastern Mindanao, converge on Mendiola street, Manila, on September 21 to commemorate the 43rd anniversary of then President Ferdinand Marcos’ declaration of Martial Law. Dausay is the chieftain of Talaingod, Davao del Norte and the spokesperson of the Manobo organization Salugpongan Ta ‘Tanu Igkanugon (Unite to Defend Ancestral Land). Photo by Bryan Gonzales/UP Aperture.

THE KILLING of two Lumad leaders and an educator in Surigao del Sur on September 1 has brought to public attention accusations of human rights violations and harassments allegedly committed by the military and paramilitary groups operating in the non-Muslim indigenous people’s communities in Mindanao. (“Adequate, but can still be improved,” Sept. 14, 2015)

Due to the violence in Lumad communities, more than 3,000 Manobos have taken refuge in a sports center in Tandag City, Surigao del Sur, after fleeing their homes for fear of paramilitary groups. (“Lumad Crisis: UN experts urge independent probe into atrocities,” InterAksyon, Sept. 23, 2015)

Following this and other developments, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released a statement calling on the Philippine government to “launch a full and independent investigation” into the reported killings. (“Philippines: UN experts urge probe into killings of three Indigenous peoples’ rights defenders,” Sept. 22, 2015)

The statement was critical of the killing of civilians and the military occupation of such civilian institutions as schools. It also rebuked the military for allegedly hindering Lumad access to their farms in the mountains, as well as to their burial sites.

Earlier, Commission on Human Rights (CHR) chairperson Chito Gascon condemned the killings in a dialogue with Lumad representatives at the CHR office in Quezon City, describing them as “extrajudicial” in nature. The CHR is also conducting an inquiry into the killings.

“Even if the fact-finding mission isn’t completed yet, it is clear to us from the photos alone that these were extrajudicial killings. And we condemn them,” Gascon said. (“‘Lumad’ killings extrajudicial, says CHR,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, Sept. 20, 2015)

Reports by the media on later developments were almost solely based on the statements of such key sources as the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), which has been accused of being involved in the violence against the Lumad through their supposed command over paramilitary groups. The AFP has denied the allegations and instead attributed the violence to the New People’s Army (NPA) and to a “tribal war.”

The complexity of the situation in the Lumad communities has apparently proven too much for the media, some of which have either taken the side of the military or that of various groups that claim that it is the military that’s responsible. Although there is no doubt that the NPA does operate in Lumad areas, there is as well the possibility that military units have been addressing the insurgency in their accustomed ways. That possibility would, of course, have implications on the military’s “development approach” to insurgency and its credibility as one of the institutions representing the government in the Lumad communities.

Attempts by the media to delve deeper into the issue were few and far between. There was no attempt to explain what the killings and the allegations of harassment of students and teachers and the closure of tribal schools mean beyond the obvious violence and displacement. What is the implication, for example, with regard to international humanitarian law, or the laws of war? How does this square with the government’s human rights commitments? What about the fact that arming paramilitaries and using them to protect business interests, many of them in Lumad areas, is actually government policy?

Trying to make sense of the situation, Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Solita Monsod in her September 19 column (“Who’s exploiting the lumad?”, Inquirer, Sept. 19, 2015) explained who the Lumad are, and pointed out that Lumad areas have been hotbeds of revolt where guerillas of the NPA have been fighting the military. She also claimed that the NPA’s control of these areas is the main problem. But then she overdid it by claiming the military could not have committed the killings because the military has changed since the martial law days.

Technically speaking, the army did not pull the trigger in Surigao del Sur but Monsod’s assertion is misleading in the face of evidence linking the military to many human rights violations to this day. For the most part, the NPA’s alleged exploitation of the Lumad and the community’s resistance to so-called “development aggression” by the government and businesses with the help of the military were not addressed by the media as part of the context of the killings.

Previous reports have mentioned claims linking the military to paramilitary groups by key persons including Surigao del Sur governor Johnny Pimentel, and some locals and witnesses to the killings. By many accounts, the military was always seen with the paramilitary forces, which Governor Pimentel referred to as the “monsters” that the armed forces created. But what is the implication of this relationship? Did it suffice to explain the supposedly deadly dynamic between the military and the paramilitary? The fact that the military, by its own admission, did not intervene during the attack – is it enough to hold the military accountable for the violence? These are questions the media should have attempted to answer.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) presented in a release published on September 23 different accounts from locals and government officials that link units of the military to paramilitary groups such as the Magahat-Bagani and the Alamara. (“Philippines: Paramilitaries Attack Tribal Villages, Schools,” Human Rights Watch, Sept. 23, 2015)

A series of reports that aired in ABS-CBN 2’s TV Patrol attempted to tread the same path. Part one of an ongoing special about the Lumad looked back at the Surigao del Sur killings, giving the public a clearer picture of their impact on the communities (“Libo-libong lumad, lumikas dahil sa patayan,” TV Patrol, Sept. 23, 2015). The second part, meanwhile, discussed the alleged radicalization of the Lumad through education. (“ALCADEV, training school umano ng NPA,” TV Patrol, Sept. 24, 2015)

But perhaps because of the spate of claims and counter-claims between the main protagonists — the military on the one hand and the leftist groups on the other — media reporting has tended to be superficial and mostly limited to citing who said what.